G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 7 (Shrimati Rani Chauhani) was the proprietor and sir -holder of the three plots in dispute. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (Gopal Narain and Tula Ram) were the tenants of these plots. On 14 -7 -1943, Gopal Narain and Tula Ram executed a surrender in respect of these plots and gave up possession thereof. The zamindar cultivated the plots for some time and on 9 -12 -1944, inducted Sita Ram, the father of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Ram Kishan and Babu Ram as tenants of these plots. The UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. X of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act X) came into force on 14 -6 -1947. Sec. 27 of this Act provides for reinstatement of certain ejected tenants. Sub -section (1) of Sec. 27 provides that tenants evicted Under Sec. 165, Sec. 171 or Sec. 180 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939, may apply within six months from the date of the commencement of Act X to the court, which passed the decree for ejectment for reinstatement. Sub -section (2) provides; for applications for reinstatement being made by persons who had become hereditary tenants Under Sec. 16(1) of the UP Tenancy Act and had been ejected from their holdings and by tenants dispossessed of their holdings, through surrender or otherwise, in consequence of any fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion. Sub -section (3) provides for the disposal of such applications and for the reinstatement of the person making the application and for ejecting any other person in possession of the holding. The proviso to Sub -section (3) lays down that, if the holding had been let out after the ejectment or dispossession of the original tenant to another person before 1 -9 -1946 and such person was not a relation, dependent or servant of the landholder, then such person would be declared to be the sub -tenant of the holding. On 26 -11 -1947, Gopal Narain and Tula Ram, the original tenants, applied Under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 27 of Act X for reinstatement. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, on 28 -11 -1949. On appeal, the order was set aside and the case was remanded for rehearing. A revision against the remand order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The remanded case was again heard by Assistant Collector, First Class and the application was again dismissed on 30 -8 -1958. An appeal against that order was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 31 -10 -1958. Thereupon Tula Ram filed a revision application before the Additional Commissioner who, by his order dated 12 -6 -1959, recommended to the Board of Revenue that the orders of the subordinate courts be set aside and the trial court be ordered to record its decision on the question whether the original tenants were hereditary tenants Under Sec. 16(1) of the UP Tenancy Act or not. Before the revision application could be disposed of by the Board of Revenue, the village was notified Under Sec. 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act). The proceedings before the Board of Revenue were accordingly stayed. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram thereupon filed objections Under Sec. 9 of the Consolidation Act. They asked the Consolidation Officer to decide their application filed Under Sec. 27 of Act X and to direct their names to be recorded as the tenure holders of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were hereditary tenants Under Sec. 16 of the UP Tenancy Act, that the surrender had been obtained by the Karinda of the Zamindar by coercion and that the original tenants were entitled to reinstatement. He accordingly directed that the names of Gopal Narain and Tula Ram be recorded as the tenants -in -chief and the names of the Petitioners be recorded as trespassers. Against this order, the Petitioners went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal, holding that Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were not hereditary tenants Under Sec. 16 of the UP Tenancy Act and that the surrender had not been obtained by coercion or undue influence. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram then filed a second appeal. In second appeal, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the finding of the Settlement Officer that Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were not hereditary tenants but, on the other question, he differed from the Settlement Officer and held that the surrender had been obtained by coercion and undue influence. He accordingly set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. Revision by the Petitioners against the order of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation was dismissed by the Director of Consolidation. The Petitioners challenge the orders of the District Deputy Director and of the Director of Consolidation.
(2.) After hearing learned Counsels for the parties at length, I have come to the conclusion that this writ petition must be allowed on the ground that the application Under Sec. 27 of Act X made by Gopal Narain and Tula Ram could not, in law, be disposed of after the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) had come into force. There is no doubt that, if the application Under Sec. 27 of Act X had been allowed before the Abolition Act came into force, Gopal Narain and Tula Ram would have been reinstated as tenants of the plots in dispute and the Petitioners would have been declared sub -tenants thereof not liable to ejectment for three years. But before the application could be disposed of, the Abolition Act came into force. Now the question is whether any such order could be passed by the revenue courts after the abolition of Zamindari. There is no specific provision in the Abolition Act, providing for the continuance of the proceedings pending Under Sec. 27 and for conferring the status of one of the tenure holders, contemplated in the Abolition Act, upon the person reinstated. Could the revenue courts, after the Abolition Act, reinstate a person as a "tenant"? The only tenures, which a person can now hold, are those of Bhumidhari, sirdari and Asami (Adhivasi tenures ceased after October 30, 1954). The right to these tenures can be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the Abolition Act. It is not possible, after the date of vesting, to reinstate any person as a "tenant". In Shital Prasad v/s. Board of Revenue UP, 1962 AWR 96 a Division Bench of this Court held that, after the date of vesting, no one could be declared to be a tenant Under Sec. 59 of the UP Tenancy Act as rights of tenants as such had ceased to exist and new rights had been substituted in their place. If a person, who claimed to have been a tenant from before the date of vesting, cannot be declared to be a tenant after that date, much less could a person, who had admittedly ceased to be a tenant before the date of vesting, be held to be and reinstated as a tenant after that date.
(3.) While enacting the Abolition Act, the Legislature was conscious of proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of those completed before the date of vesting and of those pending on that date. In respect of completed proceedings, the person, who had been reinstated as a tenant before the date of vesting, acquired Bhumidhari, sirdari or Adhivasi rights in accordance with the provisions of the Abolition Act and the person, who had been declared to be a sub -tenant under the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Sec. 27 of Act X, become an Asami under Sec. 21(1)(c) thereof. In respect of proceedings still pending on the date of vesting, the Abolition Act confers rights only on one of the classes of persons covered by Sec. 27 of Act X, namely, those who were entitled to regain possession under Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 27, i.e., those who had been evicted under Sec. 180 of the UP Tenancy Act and had applied for reinstatement. If such a person was recorded as an occupant of land contemplated by Sec. 16 of the Abolition Act, then he would be deemed to be a hereditary tenant and would consequently become sirdar under Sec. 19(iv) and if such a person was entitled to regain possession of land other than grove land or land to which Sec. 16 applied, he would become, on the date of vesting, an Adhivasi under Sec. 20(b)(i) of the Abolition Act. The conferment of rights on only of the classes of persons covered by Sec. 27 of Act X, whose applications were pending on the date of vesting necessarily implies that no rights were intended to be conferred upon the other classes of persons whose applications were also pending on that date. The Abolition Act contemplates that where, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, some one held land as a tenant or was deemed to so hold it, he shall acquire the rights of one of the tenure -holders under the Act. It does not contemplate that such a right can remain in abeyance and can be acquired after the termination of some pending proceedings. The rights have to be determined on the basis of the status of the persons on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting.;